Sony to Stop Producing Smaller CRTs 564
NerveGas writes "Sony is apparantly going to stop producing 17- and 19-inch CRTs, in favor of LCDs. It seems a bit soon to drop CRTs completely, seeing as how LCDs still have less than 30% of the market share. Maybe since their patent on Trinitron screens expired, they're not able to command ridiculous margins any more." Smaller CRTs? I've got a couple 19" Sony monitors here, and I've always considered them to be a good size.
Does this mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
They can get all the details they want from Sony's now-expired patent, like Mitsubishi did. Why they're not doing so is mostly because Trinitron/Diamondtron monitors are slightly more difficult to manufacturer.
I'm actually curious to see who builds ViewSonic's vertically-flat trinitron-esque tubes (it's definitely not Sony).
Re:LCDs Still Suck. (Score:4, Interesting)
I run UT2003.
I own a LCD.
My LCD runs usually at 75 hz, although it can run at 80 hz.
I see no ghosting whatsoever.
I see no dead pixels, and I've even had my monitor go through the US's airline BAGGAGE.
Me thinks you have not seen a modern LCD.
I hate big monitors (Score:4, Interesting)
But EmagGeek! Why not use the 21"!?
Because it's so damn deep, I can't put my input devices in front of it! I just happened to be at that stupid trendy (but cheap) quasi-swedish furniture store today measuring up desks. The standard depth was 28", on almost every single desk. That ViewSonic monitor I mentioned is 24" deep including cable relief - so unless I can find a 4" keyboard, I'm screwed..
Of course, chiming in with all the "conspiracy theories" that this thread seems to have spawned, I could conjecture that monitor manufacturers have teamed up with computer desk manufacturers so that no desk can accomodate the smallest CRT, forcing people to LCDs...
Re:LCDs Still Suck. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:5, Interesting)
People who buy them as televisions have to be very careful to avoid burn it, that's why they have grey vertical bars instead of black when watching 4:3 television on a 16:9 display. The technology just isn't quite there yet.
LCDs (Score:2, Interesting)
A good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I don't buy LCDs except for space and computers I don't use alot. My 3 main monitors are CRTs. First, I run at 1920x1440 and 1600x1200 on my 2 main computers. To get a LCD that does that is well beyond my budget. Second, I play games, I like bright images, and clear colors. LCD's are great for places like entertainment centers where you don't want a clunky CRT viing for affection with the TV, but for something you need to look at for hours a day, a CRT is the way to go.
I do hope though, that in the future very high quality LCDs will be available at more reasonable prices. When I bought my first CRT, it did 1024x768 and cost more than my Diamontron 17in monitor that does 1600x1200 and is perfect flat. (I'm young. the monitors bought before the 1024x768 ones were purchased by the parents.) It seems like LCDs are at that exact point. The very cheap ones are 1024x768 and crappy quality. But hopefully the same way I can now get a nice monitor for that price, hopefully the same amount of time in the future the CRTs will be that good.
Back in the old days... (Score:5, Interesting)
They worked nights and weekends on the project and when they finally had something to show, they schlepped the tube around to Motorola, Zenith, Sylvania, GE and one other American Television company. They chose those 5 companies because, combined, the companies dominiated the world television industry. None of the companies was interested. Discouraged, the group sold the rights to the tube to a European outfit. The Europeans gave the tube up as a lost cause because it was too hard to manufacture so the Europeans dumped it on a small Japanese electronics company. The company was Sony and that's how Sony ended up with the Trinitron. The name Trini - meant three for the three color guns and Tron, well because everything being built at Berkeley back then was a "-tron" - Calutron, Bevatron.
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:5, Interesting)
This all depends on what the pixel response time is. I get no ghosting on my LCD's at all, but I have seen some crappy (eg Viewmaster) ones that did ghost.
My pixel response time on my TWO LG 563LE's is 25ms. This is the equivalent of 40fps... BUT this is only for the pixels that change colours.
All of the other pixels don't change color at all, and as such are inifite FPS !!! This is why you don't get such sore eyes on these babies.
I also play counter-strike and DOD on my LCD's and I experience no problems at all playing. I have had other gamers surprised at how good they are given they are LCD's
What about Flat Panel CRT technology? (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporate reasons for LCD screens (Score:5, Interesting)
(not in any particular order)
- less desktop space
- lighter (you'd be surprised the number of insurance claims for back problems come from lifting monitors, they get moved from deskto desk or returned for repairs)
- don't go fuzzy over time
- look more high tech
- less fire risk
- less electric shock risk
- less radiation risk
- no alignment problems
- less heat generated
- lower magnetic interference of nearby equipment
- able to withstand wider temp and pressure fluctuations
- less storage space for stock
This is offset by the dowsides ppl have mentioned like:
- limited viewing angle
- gamma/colour problems in cheaper LCDs
- fixed resolution
- images can look "harsh"
- cost
I'm sure Sony did their marketing homework before announcing this. Personally I love my 21" Trinitron...
Re:LCDs Still Suck. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure the it's all about profit margin.... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that the monitor world would be divided into 2 groups... people who buy the cheapest monitors, and people who buy quality/high end monitors. The people who buy the cheapest monitors aren't profitable, and the people who pay extra for quality are exactly the people moving to LCD's. The few high end CRT customers will be willing to pay for 21" or 24" monitors.
Personally, I use an NEC MultiSync 95 CRT as my main monitor, and I love it. But if you want to know how cheap CRT's are, I recently bought a 15" Compaq MV5500 for $150.. with a $150 rebate. Items that are given away tend not to be profitable.
Re:Sony GDM-FW900 (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure to some people some thing about one product is more desirable than the other. I have personally never noticed any color-change due to viewing angle on high-end screens, but it might just be my eyes. You are right about the color depth - but for *me* who doesn't exactly do photoediting for a living, don't put high on a priority list.
there are monitors that comes with a hard-coating (glass?) to prevent the sharp-object etc, though. However I'd say that's a child-education issue than a fault-of-the-monitor issue. You child certainly might consider crayoning the wall / carpet / cat very entertaining as well, but hey, you teach them to stop, right?
Eyestrain (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I prefer LCD screens for reading text. The square pixels and sharp edges lend themselves to that sort of purpose.
LCDs are better for reading text. CRTs quickly give you eyestrain. The CRT image aslo shakes, even if only slightly on the better models. When LCD producers have had time to put as much time, effort and funding into color as the CRTs manufactures, then there will be no need to keep the CRTs around.Right now, the best compromise is to have dual-head: one CRT for sensitive color work, one LCD for the other work.
Vacuum tubes (Score:3, Interesting)
We were so close to leaving those heavy, hot, power-gulping things behind with the 20th century.
(OTOH, I also note that it always takes about half a minute for my computer to power up, even the laptop with LCD. Same as when I was a kid and we had to "warm up" the television or radio in advance of a show.)
Re:the las vegas effect (Score:4, Interesting)